FRIDAY, 30th AUGUST, 1918 (At Perth.)

Present: Hon. W. C. Angwin, Chairman. Hon. J. F. Allen, M.L.C | T. H. Harrison, Esq., M.L.A. S. McC. Brown, Esq., M.L.A.

LEWIS RICHARD MACGREGOR, Chief of the Wheat Staff of the Westralian Farmers, Limited, sworn and examined:

6559. By the CHAIRMAN: I believe you desire to give evidence before the Commission?—My object is not to attempt to pick to pieces any evidence which may have been given, but with a view of seeing whether or not we can tender suggestions which will make for smooth working, as far as the farmer is concerned and as far as the Government's interest in the wheat is concerned, and also having regard to the acquiring agent 's duties. Starting at the first operation that concerns the farm I might briefly deal with the question of sampling. The farmer contends that his wheat should be sampled under a running bulk sample. I notice that Mr. Solomon of Geraldton, in giving evidence (question 5164), said that a running bulk sample was a splendid thing for the acquiring agents, but not for the Pool. Two questions before that he said that he had wheat there which went 67lbs. to the bushel, and if shipping that wheat the chances were that he would work some of the lighter wheat in to offset that in the bulk sample. Again, one of the most experienced tally clerks you have examined, Mr. Wright, of Spencer's Brook, said that if the wheat was f.a.q. there was no need to sample every bag, but if it was dirty he sampled every bag. These two statements bear out the farmer's contention that a running bulk sample is a recognised practice in the trade. Under the old system the wheat buyers bought the wheat and docked it on one basis, but they shipped on a running bulk sample, working in some of the lighter and inferior wheat to offset the prime. The farmer contends that he, and not the wheat buyer, should get that benefit. Before the Pool came into existence there was competition for the wheat and it is a common thing for a parcel of good wheat to carry a parcel of inferior wheat. Under last season's arrangements, this was upset and we were forced to sample on an individual bag basis.

6560. You had to do that previously?—Not on the individual bag basis. The custom prevailed whereby a parcel of prime wheat would carry a small quantity of inferior. I noticed also Mr. Solomon suggested that I told him we would not dock the co-operative companies' wheat because we would lose their other business. I have no recollection of having made such a statement. In dealing with agents, if any man appears to be handling wheat in such a way as to bring about loss, we have no compunction in taking the matter out of his hands. Probably what Mr. Solomon remembered was that in discussing the question of dockage generally, I indicated that we would not be passing on dockage to most of the co-operative companies. What I had mind was our definite arrangement with the Scheme in regard to the running bulk sample. There was no suggestion that we would waive dockages in order to get other business.

6561. You could read it that way?—I do not think so, having regard to the fact the he deals with other business. Then again, we find that to all intents and purposes bulk sampling obtains in Canada, and Canada is one of the most up-to-date countries in the world so far as grain marketing is concerned. They take a bulk sample in a truck by means of a long and pointed instrument which they pass through the bulk contents of the truck. I noticed a suggestion that sub-agents have tried to pass their old season's wheat as new. I might read a quotation from our circular to agents dated the 22nd December. It is follows: We feel sure that agents will realise the seriousness of new wheat becoming contaminated with weevil. If weevil get a footing in the large dumps or in skeleton sheds at depot, the result will be ruinous to the community in general, and agents are requested to give this matter their urgent attention. I cannot see why the farmer should wish to pass off on the sub-agent old season's wheat as new, nor why the sub-agent should knowingly pass old season's wheat through to the depôt as new, seeing that from the point of view of the farmer, there would be no dockage attached to it. I think that the fact that 125,000 bags of 1917-18 wheat have been delivered to the mills bears out our contention that the sub-agents have been carrying out their instructions in this regard. I would not suggest that there have not been instances where weevily wheat has got through.

6562. It is those isolated instances in which the harm is done. Just look at this sample. This came from Geraldton where particular care was taken with a view to testing Professor Lefroy's system of protection from weevil. Three or four bags of wheat of this quality got into the centre of an otherwise perfectly clean stack. Those few bags escaped your agent and escaped the Government agent. They have spoilt the whole of the test, and it probably means the distribution of weevil through the whole stack?—Certainly it was nothing short of criminal to allow such stuff to get into a clean stack.

6563. By Mr. HARRISON: Do you think that sample is of this season's wheat?—No, I think it is old season's wheat.

6564. By the CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mills at Geraldton said that farmers had told him personally that they were sending in old wheat?—I have not heard of it .

6565. By Mr . HARRISON: Would we not be likely to get more instances of this kind under a running bulk sample?—I cannot see what difference bulk sampling would make as against the present method.

6566. Suppose I sent 50 loads of wheat to a depot. Under the running bulk sample would you take a sample of each load?—Yes.

6567. And retain it?—Not necessarily. A record of the weight of your individual loads could be kept.

6568. Would there be no difficulty if, towards the end, I sent in considerably inferior wheat?—I think not. I do not suggest that wheat weighing 65lbs. would necessarily carry a particularly light parcel going 53lbs., but a few Ibs. either way could be carried as f.a.q.

6569. Do you think the farmer would be satisfied with your estimate as an average sample if you did that?—If the weight of the wheat is marked on the tally note it would be indisputable evidence. The system was in vogue last year at Dowerin and there were no disputes there.

6570. By the CHAIRMAN: Then you disagree with the evidence of Mr. Keys, Mr. Evans, Mr. Solomon, and, I think, Mr. Wright?—Mr. Solomon supports my evidence for he says that, in shipping, he would work off the lighter wheat with the better quality. Under the old system the farmer would have been docked for light quality wheat and the shipping agents would have pocketed the dockage. We say the farmers should get that benefit. Mr. Keys says a running bulk sample is not the custom of the trade. As against that we have Mr. Clement Giles, who maintains that it is the custom.

6571. We have the evidence of Mr. Giles that Great Britain will buy the wheat, but this morning Mr. Watt says that is not so?—I notice some reference to that.

6572. By Mr. HARRISON: What would be the position of the farmer who had only first class wheat?—There should be a premium on such wheat.

6573. Then, conversely, there should be a dockage on inferior wheat?—If a man has some prime, and some a little under f.a.q., the prime should carry the lighter wheat. Of course, it should not be asked to carry smut, which would have to be passed out under any system. It has been said that where a co-operative society is operating under a monopoly, they get careless in the matter of sampling. At Hine's Hill in 1916-17 we had a monopoly. A certain farmer carted his wheat one mile into the siding, where our agent refused a considerable parcel of it. The farmer got into touch with an opposition agent at Nangeenan, seven miles away, and in consequence, the rest of his wheat was carted six miles to Nangeenan, while the parcel our agent had laid aside pending valuation which had been branded "F," was carted out of Hine's Hill seven miles to Nangeenan, where it was all accepted by the